Reality Check - Who on the Kings is a bona-fide NBA starter?

[IfAt1st]

I don't follow the NBA as close as some on here, so I'd like an "educated Kings fan's" take on this concept. This is a subjective discussion and I almost didn't post this, but what the heck.

When I watch NBA games, I have noticed that the majority of the time, the team with the most "NBA starters" on the floor wins.

What's an "NBA starter"?
Someone who has, or would, start and play over 30 minutes a game on a competitive NBA team.
It's a very subjective term, since there are players who have started, played a lot, but aren't NBA starter quality IMO. And there are players who don't start and/or play 30 minutes who are certainly starter quality.
There is a component of playoff experience factored in there, and most certainly clutch play required (4th quarter in close games).

So looking at the Kings roster, I just don't see anyone who would really qualify as an NBA starter in my criteria.
* Yes, this includes Tyreke, since IMO his stats are inflated and lots of times fairly meaningless. He has yet to prove to me that he belongs on an NBA floor in crunch time, since he led the league last year in failed drives, TO's and missed shot % when it mattered (I have no stat website to back this up, just memory).
* DMC may easily be a bona-fide NBA starter by midseason, but he wasn't last year.

* Thornton comes closest IMO. He is clutch, and doesn't crumble when the pressure is on. Problem is, he's a relative flash-in-the-pan, only doing this for a small time in the NBA. Assuming he continues to play this season like he did last year for us, I'd put him as an almost-starter.
* Dalembert is barely an NBA starter, IMO, due to him averaging less than 30 minutes a game the past 3 years, and him only starting half the games for us even last year. He's a borderline role player, though a significant one. You can't pencil him in the lineup and be assured he's going to be the best player you have for that position on any given night.
* John Salmons, JJ Hickson, and Chuck Hayes are backups on a competitive team.
* Jimmer's an untested rookie, drafted 10th.

After seeing the way the Kings collapsed time and time again in competitive games last season, I don't see why we should realistically expect a huge jump in team cohesion and ability to score/defend when it matters this year.

Am I missing something in this subjective comparison?
Maybe I'm guilty of preconceived simplistic notions, thinking that you want a "best player" on the floor, and missing some contemporary, "specialist player" NBA strategy?

I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade, I'm just trying to realistically set my expectations for this year.
The Kings are averaging 22 wins the past 3 years. They may have to double that to make the playoffs. I believe they have to either make the playoffs this year, or make a long hard run at making them, to spark enough fan interest to remain here in the future.
I want the Kings to stay here. I don't want this team to build pieces and cohesion, and then come together into a competitive team in Anaheim.
I am worried that the fanbase and management may think we have enough proven players on this team, because they don't seem too concerned with acquiring proven players (Billups, AK47, Iguadala, etc).
I mean - this is basically the same team as last year, right? Plus a few backups (Hickson, Chuck Hayes, & Salmons) and a rookie, but minus Dalembert (thus far).
Are the Kings really resting their entire future on the required development of Tyreke, DMC, and Jimmer?

 

[funkykingston]

Seriously?

You want people to try and convince you that Tyreke Evans and DeMarcus Cousins are worthy of being starters in the NBA?

Seriously?

 

[Bricklayer]

Deshawn Stevensen started on a championship team last season. This question has no real meaning without context.

As an aside, while the Reke insult is of course traditional by now, circa 1997 Kobe wasn't a "bona-fide starter" etiher. Talented guys aren't bonafide starters right up until the point when they suddenly become bona fide starters.

 

[Kingsguy881]

This thread is lock material. Not even worth much more than that as a response.

 

[IfAt1st]

Yes, I'm seriously saying that Tyreke and DMC were not valid NBA starters in my mind last year.

But if you want to ignore those 2, how about the rest of the roster?

 

[IfAt1st]

This thread is lock material.

WTF?

I'm kinda baffled, under what criteria would you lock the thread?

 

[Kingsguy881]

WTF?

I'm kinda baffled, under what criteria would you lock the thread?

Trolling

 

[IfAt1st]

Deshawn Stevensen started on a championship team last season. This question has no real meaning without context.

As an aside, while the Reke insult is of course traditional by now, circa 1997 Kobe wasn't a "bona-fide starter" etiher. Talented guys aren't bonafide starters right up until the point when they suddenly become bona fide starters.

I made the context clear, I thought :
Compare the Kings roster with other competitive teams, and make expectations based on that (not on projected huge-stride improvement).

Deswawn started on a team with: Nowitski, Kidd, Marion, Terry, Chandler, Berea, Cardinal, Haywood, etc.
It's not about the one non-NBA starter on a competitive team.
I thought I made that clear...?

 

[IfAt1st]

Trolling

Really?

What criteria would you qualify my post as trolling?

(BTW - brilliant troll-posing-as-an-anti-troll, there - and I can show why you're being a troll in mentioning "trolling", too)

Now either stick to the discussion topic or troll elsewhere, please.

 

[Hoovtrain]

Kind of ridiculous to say that Dalembert is "barely an NBA starter". He has started the marjority of games in his career and been a steady contributor.

 

[Heuge]

Only a troll would define DMC and Reke as non-NBA starters. sorry.

I think JJ. Hickson, Salmons, and Thorton are NBA starter material. FWIW.

 

[Kingsguy881]

Really?

What criteria would you qualify my post as trolling?

(BTW - brilliant troll-posing-as-an-anti-troll, there - and I can show why you're being a troll in mentioning "trolling", too)

Now either stick to the discussion topic or troll elsewhere, please.

Look, your question is redundant. According to the parameters of your question, the only real 'starter material' player in the league would be either an all star or a super star.

 

[spudfan]

By your logic you seem to think that their are only about 25 players in the NBA who are worthy of being starters. Outside of Chicago, Miami, Boston, Los Angeles, Dallas (maybe not even Dallas) who else had a chance of winning the Title? There were other teams with good records but no one really thought they had a chance of winning. So were only those teams competitive? If those were the only teams being competitive to win following your "Someone who has, or would, start and play over 30 minutes a game on a competitive NBA team." we have 25 NBA starters in the league, cool. Wait I meant 24 since you say Stevenson doesn't count.

 

[Bricklayer]

Really?

What criteria would you qualify my post as trolling?

(BTW - brilliant troll-posing-as-an-anti-troll, there)

Oh, its pretty clearly trolling. The only question is whether it could inspire some actual discussion of value or not.


So let's pan back some number of years and look at that Dallas squad as it started out.

-- JKidd was a highly touted collegian (use that term lighlty as he was too abysmally stupid to pass his SATs and had to be snuck in the basket weaving backdoor) who came into the league vastly immature and together with Jim Jackson and Jamal Mashburn flashed promise before imploding the lockerroom as they fought over, get this, a freaking girl, thus necessitating the breakup of thier young team with the peices shipped out all over the league.

-- Dirk came into the league after getting traded for Robert Tractor Traylor of all people, was too soft and skinny, and shot a sterling .405 as a rookie while averaging 8pts on a 20 something win team.

-- Tyson Chandler came into the league as part of a widely mocked draft day maneuver that caused the Bulls to trade away youngstud PF Elton Brand so that they could take both Eddie Curry And Chandler with the #1 and #2 picks in the draft. Curry was fat and pathetic. Chandelr never develioped an offensive game, kept on guetting hurt, and was eventually shipped out in facor of aging and immensively expensive Ben Wallace. He had a couple of good years then another injury, a bad year in Charlotte, and ened up in Dallas for peanuts. Now he's being given the near max.

-- Jason Terry was drummed out of a losing Atlanta squad because he was too selfish to play PG but too small top play SG.

-- Stevensen was young and raw and dumb adn one of the poster children for the institution fo the age limit, and has gone on to be old and dumb, a defensive specialist with almost no other game at all.

-- Haywood was a platoon player in Washington, where he engaged in repeated locker room brawls with Etan Thomas.

and just etc.

Almost every one of the World Champs would have failed your "bona fide starter" test at some point in their early careers. And yet there they were, winning it all. Imagine that. Why don't you explain why exactly you think these young Kings are any different than any other young team that starts out raw and climbs to the top.

 

[spudfan]

Look, your question is redundant. According to the parameters of your question, the only real 'starter material' player in the league would be either an all star or a super star.

He goes further than that, saying only on a "competitive team". If you are an all star or super star on a bad team you are not starter material.

 

[IfAt1st]

Only a troll would define DMC and Reke as non-NBA starters. sorry.

I think JJ. Hickson, Salmons, and Thorton are NBA starter material. FWIW.

DMC and Tyreke are problematic in this comparison, since they have only played here, I agree.
That's why I tried to focus the discussion on the other players.

Thanks for your opinion that JJ & Salmons are starters - I disagree, but I am mainly with you on Thornton.

Kind of ridiculous to say that Dalembert is "barely an NBA starter". He has started the marjority of games in his career and been a steady contributor.

Dalembert barely started half the games for us.
Averaged 24 minutes.

 

[funkykingston]

In the simplest terms, if you start the game for an NBA team, you are an NBA starter. Obviously there are bench players who make starts due to injuries, suspensions, the coach trying to shake things up etc, but if (when healthy) a player is on the floor to start most games in his career, guess what? He's a "bonafide" NBA starter. Whether fans want to argue if a player is "starter quality" or not is irrelevant.

Which is the problem with this thread in the first place and which you mentioned in the OP. It's completely subjective. Especially when you establish arbitrary criterion (30 mpg on a "competitive" team) and then discount players (such as Evans) that meet that criterion with comments that simply suggest you don't like their game.

Evans isn't a "bonafide NBA starter"? You don't think the Lakers, Mavs, Knicks, Hawks, and Spurs would find a starting spot for him on their team? What about the Portland Trailblazers? They were a playoff team last year and are offering Jamal Crawford a starting spot when on the Kings he'd back up Tyreke AND Thornton.

As for Cousins, how many teams in the NBA would he NOT start for? The Magic (with Howard), the Lakers (though he clearly outplayed the injury prone Bynum in their matchups) and maybe a couple others?

Dalembert (should he return), and Salmons have started almost their whole careers, regardless of whether or not you think they deserved to.

What you've put forth is a ridiculous notion.

 

[spudfan]

You disagree Salmons is a starter? He has played for 3 different teams since the 08-09 season and started 84% of his games... how can you disagree that he is a starter when he clearly is.

 

[IfAt1st]

Why don't you explain why exactly you think these young Kings are any different than any other young team that starts out raw and climbs to the top.

Fascinating (incredibly-cherry-picked, simplified) info on the Dallas team. Always cool to read your posts.

Your question hits close to the heart of things : are these young Kings going to be able to jump to the next level, across-the-board, and gel into a competitive NBA team?

I readily acknowledge that the potential and many signs are there.
I simply don't know if they will be able to improve enough to get to that point (Tyreke less likely than DMC, IMO).
I'll be watching to see if they will, and enjoy tremendously if they do.

I just fear that they have not added enough vet clutch players to this team to ensure that.
Actually, in my memory, most of the successful NBA teams have had experienced vets on them. How many NBA teams have put most of their eggs in the inexperienced basket and proven successful?

 

[IfAt1st]

Which is the problem with this thread in the first place and which you mentioned in the OP. It's completely subjective.

You hit the problem on the head, which is why I almost didn't post it due to subjectiveness - but I thought some discussion might lead that would be worth it.

And that's why I suggest ignoring Tyreke and DMC, and focusing on the rest of the roster.

And I don't think the Salmons that played last year would be a starter on a typical competitive NBA team, no. I sure hope he can pick up his game and blend in here, though, despite what he already showed Kings fans. Beno wasn't an NBA starter under my criteria, either, even though he started here for years.

 

[Arkitect]

Fascinating (incredibly-cherry-picked, simplified) info on the Dallas team. Always cool to read your posts.

Your question hits close to the heart of things : are these young Kings going to be able to jump to the next level, across-the-board, and gel into a competitive NBA team?

I readily acknowledge that the potential and many signs are there.
I simply don't know if they will be able to improve enough to get to that point (Tyreke less likely than DMC, IMO).
I'll be watching to see if they will, and enjoy tremendously if they do.

I just fear that they have not added enough vet clutch players to this team to ensure that.
Actually, in my memory, most of the successful NBA teams have had experienced vets on them. How many NBA teams have put most of their eggs in the inexperienced basket and proven successful?

Chicago, Oklahoma City, Memphis. Largely young teams, with a few important vet pieces. Portland would have been if Roy's knee didn't explode and if Greg Oden wasn't 50. This is how small market teams rebuild.

 

[Hoovtrain]

DMC and Tyreke are problematic in this comparison, since they have only played here, I agree.
That's why I tried to focus the discussion on the other players.

Thanks for your opinion that JJ & Salmons are starters - I disagree, but I am mainly with you on Thornton.

Dalembert barely started half the games for us.
Averaged 24 minutes.

You do realize Dalembert was injured last year, right? The previous 4 years he started 328 games out of 328 games. Again, pretty ridiculous assertion on your part to say he's barely starter material.

 

[Kingsguy881]

You hit the problem on the head, which is why I almost didn't post it due to subjectiveness - but I thought some discussion might lead that would be worth it.

And that's why I suggest ignoring Tyreke and DMC, and focusing on the rest of the roster.

And I don't think the Salmons that played last year would be a starter on a typical competitive NBA team, no. I sure hope he can pick up his game and blend in here, though, despite what he already showed Kings fans. Beno wasn't an NBA starter under my criteria, either, even though he started here for years.

I would argue that you could replace Ron Ron with Salmons and the Lakers wouldn't have skipped a beat in winning a championship.

 

[pshn80]

Thread: Reality Check - Who on the Kings is a bona-fide NBA starter?

My answer: Evans, Thornton, Salmons, Hayes, Hickson, Cousins.

 

[Uncia03]

I do find the OP's stance a bit out-of-touch with reality if he doesn't consider both Tyreke and Cousins and legitimate NBA starters.
But with that being said, I decided to approach the question differently.
I guess you could better phrase the question as:
How many of our players are considered top-15 at their position, meaning that they could start on at least half of the teams.

So I'm using the efficiency ranking on hoopsstats.com to rank the players. Take in mind that this does not take into account a players defensive potential.
I'm also only going to look at post-All Star rankings, as that shows how the players were doing coming into this next season.

Evans Ranked 9th at SG.
Thornton Ranked 4th at SG. (Yes, that's how good he was when playing in Sac for the last half of the season)
Salmons Ranked 8th at SG. Would be 10th at SF.
Hayes Ranked 11th at Center. He has the lowest PPG of the top 22 Centers. That shows how efficient he is. Add in superior post defense, and that's saying something.
Cousins Ranked 15th at Center. His low FG% + his TOs really hurt his efficiency. Expect both of those to improve dramatically next year.
Hickson Ranked 15th at PF.

So we have 6 players which could start on at least half of the teams, and 3 players who are top 10 at their position.

As an aside, Kirilenko was 15th at his position, but only played in 15 games, so it's a small sample size.

In my opinion, there is a lot to be optimistic about going into this season.

 

[rainmaker]

All this takes is a little common sense. Take a look around the league.

Cousins would start for the majority.

So would Reke.

Thorton would start for a few, and be a 6th man for others. Considering George Karl just traded for Rudy Fernandez to make him a starter.......

Hickson can't start? Uh, look at what he did last year.

Salmons a bench player? Where exactly? Started here, Philly, Chi and Milw. How exactly does that equate to "bench player"?

Maybe the issue here, is that the OP just doesn't know the NBA.

 

[IfAt1st]

I guess you could better phrase the question as:
How many of our players are considered top-15 at their position, meaning that they could start on at least half of the teams.

So I'm using the efficiency ranking on hoopsstats.com to rank the players.

In my opinion, there is a lot to be optimistic about going into this season.

Yeah, that would probably be a good approach if you were trying to quantify the discussion.
And it supports my subjective thought that Thornton was the closest to an NBA starter out of the team.

I agree, there's lots to be optimistic about going into this season.

And to clarify my reasoning for omitting Tyreke and DMC as "bona-fide NBA starters":
Sub-par, rebuilding teams (who don't care whether they lose or not) play their spotlighted rookies not because they deserve their playtime, but because they have to play them. They don't have anyone better, and they need them to improve to be competitive.

On the other hand, competitive teams can't afford to have rookies make mistake after mistake during crunchtime of close games the way the Kings were able to let Tyreke and DMC do. The Kings lost many games the last 2 years because they endlessly gave those 2 the ball during crunchtime even though their performance did not warrant it (TO after TO).

So rookies (and Tyreke 2nd-year letdown) are kinda exempt from the typical NBA mandate that players justify their playtime and shots.

rainmaker - again, Tyreke and DMC are special cases.
Hickson started on (probably) the worst team in the league. I specified competitive teams.
Salmons was primarily a bench player for Chicago (and they were .500 that year):
"John Salmons 2009/10 Season

Salmons came to the Milwaukee Bucks on February 17th in a trade that allowed him to stop serving as a bench player and sometimes starter for the Chicago Bulls to take over the starting shooting guard for the Bucks. Salmons appeared in 51 games while starting 28 for Chicago"

 

[mac]

oh op is still here? thought he left with beno. thread is ridiculous. no one is saying that we're making a run for the championship this year. naturally we're relying on guys to realise their potential. sheesh what a joke.

you want to know the value of our team now under your ridiculous terms? hypothetically trade the young guys for vets. hmm I wonder if we could have traded 'inflated meaningless' tyreke for 'proven' billups. BTW, age doesn't matter, players don't decline. we should get Charles barkley and magic Johnson on our team now because they are proven and the kings are clearly making a championship run this year after not even winning 30 games for 3 seasons.

 

[Uncia03]

Yeah, that would probably be a good approach if you were trying to quantify the discussion.
And it supports my subjective thought that Thornton was the closest to an NBA starter out of the team.

The problem people are having is the fact that you're indicating that Thornton is close to being a 'legitimate' NBA starter, but isn't there yet. And you're talking about the 4th best player at his position for the latter half of last season.
Next is the fact that both Tyreke and Cousins are better than Thornton.
And if you don't believe that, consider what Tyreke and Cousins would have made if they were on the market this season. They would have signed for far more than 8mil/year.

Basically you're looking at a very, very young team and saying that they are all scrubs, not even being worthy of being considered starters in the NBA.
There is a reason why most people here are going to vigorously disagree with your stance, because it's so far off target from what most of us are seeing.

 

[IfAt1st]

Basically you're looking at a very, very young team and saying that they are all scrubs, not even being worthy of being considered starters in the NBA.
There is a reason why most people here are going to vigorously disagree with your stance, because it's so far off target from what most of us are seeing.

Let me correct that last part - I'm not saying that at all.
People may be hearing what they want - if they're confused, read the OP again.

I was theorizing that competitive teams have proven, NBA starters that are good in crunchtime.
I forwarded a subjective descriptor for "bona-fide NBA starters", which included crunchtime success and >30 minutes per game avg.
I asked who among the Kings would qualify, and detailed why I didn't think anyone but Thornton would qualify (if you focus on his 1/2 year with us), with Dally on the outlier (Tyreke and DMC being special cases). Tyreke and DMC might be "better" than Thornton, but neither of them has shown that they can make a basket in crunchtime, despite plenty of opportunities.

In my mind was years past, when pretty much every playoff team had solid players (not just All-Stars) who you could pencil in every night. Maybe the NBA is more watered down than it was.

I'm cool with people disagreeing - the ones that add to the discussion are all fine.